The Republican-led Michigan House Oversight Committee approved a slew of legislative subpoenas Tuesday directed at state departments, including the Attorney General’s office.

The oversight committee has aggressively used its subpoena power in this session to squeeze agencies in an executive branch controlled by Democrats.

The committee authorized two subpoenas demanding records related to the end of a criminal investigation by the Attorney General’s office into a Democratic Party fundraiser. 

Attorney Traci Kornak is a former Michigan Democratic Party treasurer was investigated for insurance fraud in 2022. The department set up internal firewalls due to Kornak’s relationship with Nessel, but GOP committee members say there appears to be evidence that Nessel was kept informed of progress on the inquiry and may have influenced the decision to drop it.

Rep. Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay Twp.), chair of the oversight committee, said the subpoenas were necessary to help come up with improvements to Michigan’s campaign finance laws, but also hinted impeachment could be on the table.

“The House has the power to ability to impeach civil officers of the State of Michigan where corrupt conduct in office occurs,” he said. “In order to faithfully exercise its responsibilities in this regard, the House is entitled to investigate the Department of Attorney General’s decision to decline issuing criminal charges in this matter.”

Another subpoena asks for records and communications with the Department of State related to a campaign committee to include LGBTQ protections in Michigan’s civil rights law.

Tuesday’s round of subpoenas also includes records from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources on its regulation of game ranches and its program for euthanizing Canadian geese as a wildlife control measure.

The committee demanded an in-person appearance by Michigan Health and Human Services Director Elizabeth Hertel, who is a member of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s cabinet.

“House Republicans have raised serious questions for months about troubling reports involving MDHHS — including children sleeping on floors, young people being placed in unvetted out-of-state facilities, instances of welfare and Medicaid fraud, and taxpayer-funded services being extended to individuals without legal status,” said Rep. John Roth (R-Interlochen) in a written statement. “Our goal has always been to work collaboratively behind the scenes to investigate these concerns, but unfortunately, we have not been able to secure the cooperation we had hoped for from the department.”

GOP members of the committee accused Hertel and the MDHHS of stonewalling their inquiries and said she has declined multiple invitations to appear. A health department spokesperson said there was a scheduling conflict, but she was not dodging the committee.

“A subpoena was not necessary to compel the director to appear before the committee,” said MDHHS spokesperson Lynn Sutfin, sharing a letter where Hertel requested an alternate date and a list of topics to be covered in her appearance. 

Health care in Michigan is about to get more expensive.

According to a recent report from the health policy research group KFF, insurers offering plans through the Affordable Care Act will increase premiums by 15% next year, with some even proposing 20% hikes. Medicaid is set for $1.2 trillion in national cuts, including work mandates and higher fees.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also announced last week that she joined a multi-state coalition lawsuit challenging a Trump administration rule that would “create significant barriers to obtaining health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.”

So, what does all this mean for you and your family’s health care costs?

Thomas Buchmueller, a health economist at the University of Michigan, joined The Metro on Tuesday to break down what’s changing, who will feel it first, and what Michigan can do to soften the blow.

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro

Michigan’s attorney general is co-leading a letter to Congress asking it to pass a law to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from hiding their identity while in the field.

ICE officers have received scrutiny in recent months for wearing plainclothes and masks and allegedly not identifying themselves as law enforcement during raids.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said that’s alarming.

“Often times is that ICE is not even coordinating with local or county law enforcement. So, when people have a question, say, ‘Oh my God, are these really ICE officers or not? Are they out here executing search warrants or conducting operations?’ Locals don’t even know about it,” she said.

Nessel said cases of people impersonating ICE officers to commit crimes have accompanied agents covering their faces.

The Trump administration has ramped up immigration enforcement as it reportedly set a 3,000 arrests per day target.

A handful of local law enforcement agencies in Michigan have already signed agreements to help ICE, according to Department of Homeland Security data. Other agencies not listed as having a 287(g) agreement, like Michigan State Police, may still be assisting ICE in the field.

Nessel said the masked tactics could make it difficult for Michigan law enforcement agencies working alongside their federal counterparts, noting Michigan law enforcement generally isn’t allowed to cover their faces while on duty.

“My agents? You know, we execute search warrants all the time. But they’re not masked when they do it and they’re absolutely identified as being special agents of the Department of the Attorney General. We should expect no less from ICE or any other federal agency,” Nessel said.

Despite the concerns, it’s unlikely the letter signed by 21 state attorneys general will spur any action by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress.

Earlier this month, lawmakers approved a spending bill that included funding increases for a ramp up in immigration enforcement and hiring of more staff.

ICE has not responded to a request for a comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide if a case involving the Line 5 oil pipeline stays in Michigan court or goes back before federal judges.

The case began in 2019 when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued in state court to partially shut down Line 5. Nessel cited three state laws to make an environmental case for stopping the project.

It then got moved to federal court in 2021 at the request of Enbridge, the Canadian company that operates the pipeline. That request came much later than a 30-day window to do so, partly because Enbridge says it was waiting on the result of a similar lawsuit from Michigan’s governor.

A lower federal court granted an exception to the timeline. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, didn’t buy that argument and sent the case back to the 30th Circuit Court in Ingham County where a hearing was held in January.

The Supreme Court, on Enbridge’s appeal, will decide whether there are exceptions to the 30-day period to remove a case to federal court.

Enbridge argues, while the Sixth Circuit took a narrow view of that time frame, other appellate courts have allowed exceptions. It believes the case belongs in federal court because the matter butts up against international treaty law and some federal laws as well.

In a statement, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company is “encouraged” by the Supreme Court decision Monday to take up the case.

“The District Court cited the important federal issues in this case, including U.S.-Canada Treaty issues, and the fact that litigation of these issues was already pending in another case in federal court. 

However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, deciding that district courts have no authority to give exceptions to the 30-day time limit.

The Sixth Circuit’s remand decision is in conflict with decisions from two other federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, which both held that there can be exceptions to the 30-day limit. The Supreme Court review will resolve this conflict in the courts of appeals,” Duffy said in an email.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s office is maintaining its position.

“The Department’s lawsuit is based on state claims and law, and it belongs before a Michigan court.  We remain undeterred in our commitment to protect the Great Lakes, especially from the devastating catastrophe a potential Line 5 rupture would wreak upon all of Michigan,” a written statement from AG spokesperson Kimberly Bush said.

If the case goes back to federal court, the proceedings that have happened in state court may be moot. Meanwhile, the legal fight between Enbridge and the governor is already playing out in federal court.

All this is happening as Enbridge tries to move forward with a project to build a tunnel around a replacement section of the Line 5 pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac. That project is currently in the permitting process.

Enbridge says the tunnel would make the pipeline safer by protecting it from anchor strikes. Environmental groups are fighting it, saying it could potentially rupture and dump massive amounts of oil into the Great Lakes.